DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on September 8, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application (JP 2023-14507) as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Attention is directed to the notification in the application file dated February 8, 2025 which indicates that the attempt to electronically retrieve the priority document under the priority document exchange program was unsuccessful.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“the allowable range update reception section 313” as described in paragraphs [0054], [0087] and [0112].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “312” has been used to designate both the “upper value limit decision section” and the “allowable range update reception section” in Figure 1. To correct this issue and remedy the issue with reference numeral 313 set forth above, it is suggested that Figure 1 be amended to designate the “allowable range update reception section” with reference numeral 313.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are directed to an ejection amount upper limit value determination method which is considered to be process. Claim 8 is directed to a printing device which is considered to be a machine.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites “an upper limit value determination step of… determining the upper limit value based on the reading results of the plurality of patches, wherein in the upper limit value determination step, a provisional ejection amount upper limit value, which is a provisional value of the upper limit value, is determined for each of the pattern arrays based on reading results of the plurality of patches included in the pattern arrays, when a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of the provisional ejection amount upper limit values obtained for the plurality of pattern arrays and a minimum value of the plurality of the provisional ejection amount upper limit values is within an allowable range, one of the minimum value and the maximum value is determined as the upper limit value, and when the difference exceeds the allowable range, the upper limit value is determined to be greater than the minimum value and also less than the maximum value” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention teaches determining an upper limit ejection value by determining a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of data, and deciding the upper limit ejection value based upon whether the calculated difference falls within an acceptable range. These concepts are considered to be mathematical processes (i.e., determining a difference between max and min values) and mental processes (i.e., deciding the ejection value based upon whether the calculated difference falls within an acceptable range or not).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional element of the print head, medium, and liquid colors are elements that merely generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the print head, medium and liquid colors generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Furthermore, the additional element of printing test patterns including patches having different ejection amounts and including a bleeding detection region and a background region are well-understood, routine and conventional activities, as evidenced by the teaching of Okumura (US 10,836,184 B2) and the test patterns shown in Figures 4-5 of Okuma. See MPEP 2016.05(d). Additionally, the additional element of reading the test patterns as generically recited, merely read as additional elements performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as these steps are merely feeding the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements link the abstract idea to a particular environment by performing an action of printing test patterns that is well known in the art and then gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the print head or the signals driving the print head, as currently claimed and therefore the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more.
With respect to claims 2-7, note these claims merely extend the abstract idea identified above for claim 1 and do not add any further additional elements to provide significantly more or to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to the abstract idea analogous to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites “an upper limit value determination step of… determining the upper limit value based on the reading results of the plurality of patches, wherein in the upper limit value determination step, a provisional ejection amount upper limit value, which is a provisional value of the upper limit value, is determined for each of the pattern arrays based on reading results of the plurality of patches included in the pattern arrays, when a difference between a maximum value of the plurality of the provisional ejection amount upper limit values obtained for the plurality of pattern arrays and a minimum value of the plurality of the provisional ejection amount upper limit values is within an allowable range, one of the minimum value and the maximum value is determined as the upper limit value, and when the difference exceeds the allowable range, the upper limit value is determined to be greater than the minimum value and also less than the maximum value” which are considered to be mathematical concepts and mental processes. The disclosed invention teaches determining an upper limit ejection value by determining a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value of data, and deciding the upper limit ejection value based upon whether the calculated difference falls within an acceptable range. These concepts are considered to be mathematical processes (i.e., determining a difference between max and min values) and mental processes (i.e., deciding the ejection value based upon whether the calculated difference falls within an acceptable range or not).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, the additional element of the print head, medium, and liquid colors are elements that merely generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the print head, medium and liquid colors generically link the abstract idea to a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Additionally the element of the control unit (which as illustrated in Figure 1 includes a CPU) for controlling the print head and reading section is an additional element that is merely tasked as a tool to perform the abstract ideas in a computer environment, as neither the performance or result of the abstract ideas improve or better the operation of the CPU. See MPEP 2016.05(a). Furthermore, the additional element of printing test patterns including patches having different ejection amounts and including a bleeding detection region and a background region are well-understood, routine and conventional activities, as evidenced by the teaching of Okumura (US 10,836,184 B2) and the test patterns shown in Figures 4-5 of Okuma. See MPEP 2016.05(d). Additionally, the additional element of reading section for reading the test patterns as generically recited, merely read as additional elements performing the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering as these steps are merely feeding the abstract idea data to perform the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements link the abstract idea to a particular environment by performing an action of printing test patterns that is well known in the art and then gathering the data necessary to perform the abstract idea. The result of the abstract idea does nothing to improve or better the operation of the CPU, print head or the signals driving the print head, as currently claimed and therefore the additional elements fail to amount to significantly more.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okumura (US 10,836,184 B2) and Kasahara (US 2017/0080732 A1) each teach a method for determining an ejection amount having similarities to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE J THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2161. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen D Meier can be reached at 571-272-7149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Leslie J Thompson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights